That sinking feeling: Smith, subs and national
security

If Stephen Smith wants to replace Prime Minister Julia
Gillard he would be in a stronger position if he did a better job in his
portfolio.

As he has only been Defence Minister since September
2010, it might be a bit harsh to judge his efforts so far, but he has one very
big issue that seems to be dragging.

The main issue for any defence minister is to ensure
that Australia has done everything possible to be able to defend itself against
direct armed attack. The security of our country is the highest priority of any
government. A strong defence force is our most important insurance policy to
maintain our security and so there is no acceptable excuse for not paying the
premium.

The Minister's job is to ensure we have "the ability to
conduct independent military operations in the defence of Australia by way of
controlling the air and sea approaches to Australia, and denying an adversary
the ability to operate, without disruption, in our immediate
neighbourhood".

For that reason, the Government's 2009 Defence White
Paper stated that one of its main priorities was "a significant focus on
enhancing our maritime capabilities".

And at the centre of that wish list are 12 new
submarines to be built in South Australia in Australia's biggest ever defence
project. To me, this seems particularly ambitious; especially without looking at
the alternatives. The existing six Collins class submarines, ordered by a
previous Labor government, have been disappointing from the start. It is not
obvious why Labor wants to risk a repeat of that experience. The Navy has
struggled to even have enough crew, submarines have been too regularly out of
service and in the Minister's own words (ABC TV July 20, 2011),"There are
longstanding maintenance and sustainment difficulties with our Collins class
submarines". And now he says he can't start on the new project until he knows
how long the existing submarines will last.

An interim report is due in about six weeks with the
final due March 2012. But I am not sure that isn't a smoke screen. The Minister
has not encouraged any informed public debate and tried to keep the Opposition
and the public in the dark.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has recently
been quoted as saying that the wish list for military hardware is already a long
way behind schedule.

There are various options to enhance our submarine
fleet. One option is to buy off the shelf, but that has been ruled out. The Navy
always says our needs are unique so we have to build our own submarines.
Certainly, we need boats that can travel long distances quickly and remain, for
substantial times, undetected. The Europeans build diesel submarines and some
have substantial capabilities. They would be cheaper and maybe more practical
and reliable. Even if they could not meet all our requirements, perhaps in
stronger collaboration with the US, we could have an even stronger submarine
force.

These issues are nowhere properly canvassed by the
Government; they want the assembly done in SA and that is that. But the options
should be discussed. In addition to the European option, another option is to
buy nuclear submarines from the Americans but "the Government has ruled out
nuclear propulsion for these submarines".

I presume Labor's reason is purely political. Labor
agreed to a new nuclear reactor in Sydney a few years ago for medical and
research purposes. But today any mention of the word 'nuclear' is just not
possible for a Government in bed with the Greens. But sensible discussion about
the defence of Australia is too important to be subject to a Green
veto.

Nuclear propulsion instead of diesel does not mean
Australian submarines would carry nuclear weapons. Nuclear powered boats can
travel further and faster so whilst 12 boats are needed if using diesel
propulsion, some lesser number may be more than adequate with nuclear
propulsion. All these cost differences need to be examined. Servicing a nuclear
reactor would mean that we would have to have an arrangement with the US for
maintenance as we do not have substantial nuclear technology in Australia. A
joint submarine base with the US in Australia would be good for
Australia.

And there is no rational reason for us to be too shy
about a nuclear-powered ship when, as the White Paper says, Australia has been
relying on the nuclear deterrent for years and, under successive governments,
has acknowledged the value to Australia of the protection afforded by extended
nuclear deterrence under the US alliance.

Working with the US also fits our national interest to
work closely with our principle ally. There is nothing new about Australia
working closely with the US; Australia already has extensive arrangements with
the US in situations where costs are prohibitive for us to operate alone, eg.
space-based assets and some sensitive special technologies.

Of course, if we are to build the submarines ourselves
it will end up as an open cheque book and the cost will escalate. In the White
Paper, the Government says that all purchases should be subject to the principle
"that military-off-the-shelf and commercial-off-the-shelf solutions to Defence's
capability requirements will be the benchmark against which a rigorous
cost-benefit analysis of the military effects and schedule aspects of all
proposals will be undertaken". But this will not apply to the biggest ever
defence project where the estimates are anywhere between $36 billion and $70
billion.

From the same people who gave Australia pink batts and
school halls, there is every reason to have misgivings about how this project
will be developed. If it ends up with cosy union deals, like the desalination
plant in Victoria, the cost to the taxpayer could be astronomical and the boats
might end up no better than the Collins'.

It would be in everybody's interest, including his own,
if Minister Smith was a lot more open about the critical decisions yet to be
taken on this project so vital to Australia's long term
security.

Peter Reith was a senior cabinet minister
in the Australian government from 1996 to 2001 and then a director of the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development from 2003 to
2009.

House Rules

Comments (116)

Add your comment

Ture Sjolander :

25 Oct 2011 11:54:21am

This whole matter is now antic after 24
year.

The Collin's submarine deal in Feb 1987 was controversial from
day one as Sweden wanted to build them in Sweden.(During a time when Sovjet's
own subs got stuck upon the Swedish beaches)The last negotiation was held
at Wooloomooloo in Sydney onboard the Swedish HMS Carlscrona early February
1987. The last day during a lunch onboard I suggested the Swedish high
shooters to walk down after lunch and present a new proposal and make it to a
joint business and build them in Australia. That was the reason why Kockums
finally was selected.(recorded)

But now to the point! Submarines is not
the future. Just look up in the sky and imagine the new ''submarines'' will be
up there in the air, and not under water. If you can't imagine them you will
see Chine's 'floating' nuclear ships up there anyhow.

Stop playing this
old Peek-a-Boo game in Space Time!

Reply Alert moderator

'I do not want to be associated with anyone or
anything,
anymore'
-TURE
SJOLANDER
Me - My own Network